Landmarks Flashcards
Clear and convincing standard of proof in state involuntary commitment proceeding, held to be required by Fourteenth Amendment due process.
Addington v Texas
Addington v Texas constitutional issue
14th Amendment due process
Addington v Texas issue
What standard of proof is required by the 14th Amendment to involuntarily civilly commit an individual?
Texas Supreme Court in Addington v Texas said which standard of proof satisfied due process?
preponderance of the evidence
Addington v Texas court
SCOTUS
Sexually-dangerous-persons proceedings held civil rather than criminal, so that federal constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in such proceedings.
Allen v Illinois
Allen v Illinois court
SCOTUS
Allen v Illinois issue
Does the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination apply in commitment proceedings for sexually dangerous persons?
what other landmark case does Allen v Illinois cite
-cited Estelle v Smith Dr. Grigson (Dr. Death) did comp eval w/o consent – used info from comp eval at death penalty sentencing
Execution of criminals who were mentally retarded held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
Atkins v Virginia
Atkins v Virginia court
SCOTUS
Atkins v Virginia issue
Is it unconstitutional to execute a defendant who is mentally retarded?
starie decisis
let the decision stand (to violate means to overrule a prior ruling)
Landmark cases that exhibited starie decisis
Atkins v Virginia
Payne v Tennessee
Roper v Simmons
Atkins v Virginia dissent
made fun of citing poll data
Penry
prior rape offense – brutally stabs women decorating her apartment for Halloween on Oct 30th
Petitioner was denied equal protection of the laws by the statutory procedure whereby a person may be civilly committed at the expiration of a prison sentence without the jury review available to all others civilly committed in New York, and by his commitment to an institution maintained by the Department of Correction beyond the expiration of his prison term without the judicial determination that he is dangerously mentally ill such as that afforded to all those so committed except those nearing the end of a penal sentence.
Baxstrom v Herold
Baxstrom v Herold court
SCOTUS
Baxstrom v Herold issue
Is it unconstitutional to civilly commit an individual at the end of a prison sentence without judicial involvement?
Baxstrom v Herold constitutional issue
Violated 14th Amendment equal protection clause
Colorado v Connelly court
SCOTUS
Colorado v Connelly issue
Can a court deem a Miranda waiver involuntary despite no evidence of police coercion (i.e., based only on the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the waiver)?
Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not “voluntary” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.
Colorado v Connelly
Whenever the State bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement allegedly obtained in violation of the Miranda doctrine, the State need prove waiver only by a preponderance of the evidence.
Colorado v Connelly
Cooper v Oklahoma court
SCOTUS
Cooper v Oklahoma issue
Is it unconstitutional that the burden of proof placed on the defendant to prove he/she is incompetent to stand trial be clear and convincing evidence?
Statute which provided that accused was presumed to be competent to stand trial unless accused proved incompetence by clear and convincing evidence violated accused’s right to due process under Fourteenth Amendment.
Cooper v Oklahoma
clear and convincing evidence
deportation
denaturalization
termination of parental rights
civil commitment
Daubert v Merrell Dow issue
Does the Frye standard of “general acceptance” in the field to which it belongs hold in a federal trial for admission of expert scientific testimony?
Daubert v Merrell Dow court
SCOTUS
The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye, provide the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial.
Daubert v Merrell Dow
Daubert factors
- whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested
- whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
- its known or potential error rate
- the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation
- whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community
- any other info the judge wants to include
Durham v United States issue
Are the current criteria of the right-wrong test and the irresistible impulse test adequate measures of criminal responsibility?
no - abandoned both
Durham v United States court
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.
Durham v United States
Dusky v United States issue
What should the standard be to find a defendant is competent to stand trial?
Dusky v United States court
SCOTUS
The test must be whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
Dusky v United States
Estelle v Smith issue
Is it unconstitutional to allow testimony at the death penalty sentencing phase from a psychiatric evaluation done pre-trial, when the defendant was not informed that his statements may be used at the sentencing phase?
Estelle v Smith court
SCOTUS
Admission at penalty phase of capital murder trial of testimony by psychiatrist who conducted court-ordered pretrial competency examination, held violative of defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Estelle v Smith
Estelle v Smith constitutional issue
5th amendment right to protection against self-incrimination
6th amendment right to counsel
Ford v Wainwright issue
Is it unconstitutional to execute a defendant who is insane without any type of court procedure/hearing?
Ford v Wainwright court
SCOTUS
The accused was entitled to a de novo evidentiary hearing in the District Court on the question of his competence to be executed, because Florida’s statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner’s sanity were defective and were inadequate to preclude federal redetermination of constitutional issues.
Ford v Wainwright
The Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits a state from carrying out the death sentence on a prisoner who is insane.
Ford v Wainwright
It is of questionable retributive value to execute a person who has no comprehension of why he has been singled out and stripped of his fundamental right to life. Civilized societies feel a natural abhorrence for killing one who has no capacity to come to grips with his own conscience or deity, and such an execution offends humanity.
Ford v Wainwright
In capital proceedings generally, the Court has demanded that factfinding procedures aspire to a heightened standard of reliability. (death is different)
Ford v Wainwright
Foucha v Louisiana issue
Is it unconstitutional to hold an insanity acquittee in a mental institutional after it has been determined he/she no longer suffers from mental illness (but who continues to be dangerous)?
Foucha v Louisiana court
SCOTUS
Louisiana statute, permitting indefinite detention of insanity acquittees who are not mentally ill but who do not prove they would not be dangerous, held to violate Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Foucha v Louisiana
Frendak v US issue
Can an insanity defense be imposed on a defendant over his/her objection?
Frendak v US court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Because the defendant must bear the ultimate consequences of any decision, if a defendant has acted intelligently and voluntarily, a trial court must defer to his or her decision to waive the insanity defense.
Frendak v US
Frye v United States court
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia
Frye v United States issue
Must a witness meet a certain standard to be allowed to testify as an expert witness?
Expert testimony requires standing and scientific recognition from its particular field of specialty
Frye v United States
Ibn-Tamas v US issue
Is expert testimony on battered women admissible?
Ibn-Tamas v US court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
The Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in precluding the psychologist’stestimony because it would not invade the province of the jury – either on the ultimate issue or on a “beyond the ken” basis.
Ibn-Tamas v US
Indiana v Edwards issue
Is it unconstitutional to deprive an obviously mentally ill person who is competent to stand trial the right to represent themselves at trial?
Indiana v Edwards court
SCOTUS
The Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.
Indiana v Edwards
Which of the following amendments were violated in Rock v Arkansas?
All of the above
6th amendment
14th amendment
5th amendment
Witness may only testify to matters stated before hypnosis.
State v Hurd
Banned per se rule barring hypnotically refreshed testimony by defendant
Rock v Arkansas
Suppressed hypnotically refreshed identification of defendant
State v Hurd
Established the standard for competency in the United States
Dusky v United States
Proposed procedural guidelines for court testimony about hypnosis
State v Hurd
Which of the following case opined that the standard for appellate review was “an abuse of discretion?”
General Electric Co v Joiner
Which of the following is acceptable in California courts?
A psychiatrist’s testimony regarding the results of an MMPI-2 of a suspect?
Which of the following psychological tests may be considered “suspect” regarding the Daubert criteria?
Draw-a-Person
Which of the following statements is MOST TRUE regarding the holding specifically in Kuhmo Tire Co v Carmichael?
Daubert factors apply to all “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge, not just “scientific.”
The two components to establish criminal responsibility are
mens rea
actus rea
Why were subjects of the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, the focus of Allen v Illinois, not protected from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court?
The Court did not consider the proceedings criminal in nature.
Which of the following statements regarding O’Connor v Donaldson is/are true?
Both B&D are correct
The Supreme Court chose not to address whether Mr. Donaldson had a right to treatment.
A state cannot constitutionally confine without more a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
Which of the following statements best summarizes the Supreme Court’s ruling in Parham v J.R.?
Georgia’s voluntary commitment procedures did not violate due process
All of the following cases deal with testimony at the sentencing phase except
Ford v Wainwright
Ake v Oklahoma
Estelle v Smith
Barefoot v Estelle
Payne v Tennessee
All of the following cases violate stare decisis except
Both B and C
Rock v Arkansas
Powell v Texas
Payne v Tennessee
Roper v Simmons
Atkins v Virginia
Which constitutional issue did the Supreme Court primarily cite in Ake v Oklahoma
due process
Lack of control determination must be made for SVP determination
Kansas v Crane
Discussed Dr. Lenore Walker’s research on battered women
Ibn-Tames v United States
Daubert standard applies to non-scientific testimony
Kumho Tire Company v Carmichael
Established that amnesia alone cannot deem a defendant incompetent
Wilson v United States
Discussed several reasons why a defendant may prefer not to plead NGRI
Frendak v United States
Psychiatrists can speak to dangerousness based on hypotheticals alone
Barefoot v Estelle
Introduced the “product test” for insanity
Durham v United States
Confirmed the “abuse of discretion” standard to evaluate trial courts
General Electric v Joiner
Insanity evaluations must assess nature and quality and wrongfulness
Daniel M’Naghten’s Case
Defendant’s right to testify on their own behalf extends to hypnotically refreshed testimony
Rock v Arkansas
You are employed by a state forensic hospital. You receive a call from the Department of Corrections notifying you that they have an inmate with mental illness whose needs cannot be met in prison. They plan on transferring him to you. What is the most appropriate response?
Inquire if they has been a Vitek hearing regarding the proposed transfer
The involuntary transfer of an inmate to a mental hospital during their incarceration impinges on a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment
Vitek v Jones
The involuntary transfer of an inmate to a mental hospital during their incarceration impinges on a liberty interest that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment
Neither
Baxstrom v Herold
Vitek v Jones
The extension of an inmate’s prison term at the end of his criminal sentence by commitment to a mental hospital violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment
Neither
Baxstrom v Herold
Vitek v Jones
The extension of an inmate’s prison term at the end of his criminal sentence by commitment to a mental hospital violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment
Baxstrom v Herold
Which case established the standard for trial competency in the United States
Dusky v United States
In Wilson v United States, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for more extensive post-trial finding on whether memory loss had deprived the defendant of rights associated with which constitutional amendments?
5th and 6th
According to Jackson v Indiana, the accused may only be held long enough to determine
Probability for competency restoration
In Jackson v Indiana, Theon Jackson raised an equal protection argument in which he compared himself to which group of people?
Civilly committed patients
All of the following have been allowed to use a clear and convincing evidence standard except
Competency to stand trial
termination of parental rights
deportation
denaturalization
civil commitment
Which case established the standard for trial competency in the United States?
Dusky v United States
The current standard for trial competency is best summarized by which of the following statements
As a result of mental illness, the defendant does not have the sufficient present ability to have a rational or factual understanding of the charges against him or to rationale assist his attorney in his defense
General acceptance test
Frye v United States
Daubert standard applies to non-scientific testimony
Kumho Tire Company v Carmichael
Case involved both the 5th and 6th amendments
Wilson v United States
Established standard to plead guilty or represent self as the same as Dusky
Godinez v Moran
Judge as the gatekeeper
Daubert v Merrell Dow
How did the Supreme Court differentiate Jones V United States from Jackson v Indiana
Mr. Jackson was a pre-trial detainee and therefore had not been sentenced for any crime
which of the following are valid uses of substance use/dependence as a defense
all of the above
withdrawal delirium
involuntary intoxication
lingering psychosis
pathological intoxication
in which if the following areas can voluntary intoxication NOT be considered in a criminal case
insanity defense
which disclosures of information regarding substance abuse treatment are permitted without a specific release of information signed by the patient
to criminal justice system if referred by court
which of the following is a test of executive functioning which specifically measures novel problem solving and mental flexibility
the Wisconsin Card Sorting Tests
intelligence tests such as the Wechsler scales (I.e., WAIS-III) provide standard scores that have been corrected for
age
the minimum evidentiary standard that states must use in civil commitment proceedings is
clear and convincing evidence
You are consulted to do a capacity assessment on a patient who is refusing a blood transfusion after a car accident. The need for the transfusion is not emergent, but will be needed before performing a surgery to repair numerous fractures. You examine the patient and find him to be delirious, combative, and uncooperative. You determine he lacks capacity. You can legally authorize the transfusion in all situations, except
The patient is a Jehovah’s Witness who carries a advance directive card in his wallet expressing a wish to not receive blood products
the Northwestern Juvenile Project highlighted key findings including
all of the above
the majority of juveniles met criteria for one of more psychiatric disorders
substance use was the most common disorder found in juveniles
females have higher rates of psychiatric disorder than males
ninety-three percent of juveniles had been exposed to one or more trauma
in the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v Simmons, the following were cited as reasons to abolish the death penalty for juvenile offenders under the 8th amendment
all of the above
juveniles are less mature and have less sense of responsibility than adults
adolescents are more susceptible to external influences such as peer pressure
personality traits in adolescents are less fixed than in adults
factors related to consistency of memory of traumatic experiences include the following
the more severe the trauma, the higher the consistency
misconceptions about child testimony include the following
all of the following are misconceptions
the more detailed the testimony, the more accurate it is likely to be
children easily differentiate something they heard from something they experienced
experts can make valid assessments of the accuracy of children’s reports
Jackson v Indiana court
SCOTUS
Jackson v Indiana issue
Is it unconstitutional to indefinitely commit a defendant based solely on his/her incompetency to stand trial?
It deprives defendants of equal protection and violates due process to indefinitely commit a defendant based solely on incompetency to stand trial prior to any conviction.
Jackson v Indiana
Jones v US court
SCOTUS
Jones v US issue
Does it violate due process to hold someone in a mental facility for longer than the maximum sentence for their charge once found not guilty by reason of insanity?
When a defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, the Constitution permits the Government, on the basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental institution until such time as he has regained his sanity or is no longer a danger to himself or society.
Jones v US
Kansas v Crane court
SCOTUS
Kansas v Crane issue
Is it unconstitutional to civilly commit a sexually violent predator with no evidence that his mental illness causes him to lack control over his behavior?
The Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offenders considered in Hendricks without determining the offender lacks self-control, though it does not have to be total lack of control.
Kansas v Crane
what amendments did Kansas v Crane look at?
14th amendment
due process clause
Kansas v Hendricks court
SCOTUS
Kansas v Hendricks issue
- Is “mental abnormality” adequate grounds for civil commitment?
- Does civilly committing a sex offender after a prison term for that offense violate the double jeopardy and/or ex post facto clauses of the constitution?
The Kansas sexually violent predator act’s definition of mental abnormality satisfied substantive due process requirements, and the act did not violate either the double jeopardy clause or the ex post facto clause.
Kansas v Hendricks
what did Kansas v Hendricks recommend for SVPs?
treatment if possible
Kansas v Hendricks issue
- Is “mental abnormality” adequate grounds for civil commitment?
- Does civilly committing a sex offender after a prison term for that offense violate the double jeopardy and/or ex post facto clauses of the constitution?
Kumho Tire v Carmichael court
SCOTUS
Kumho Tire v Carmichael issue
Does the Daubert standard apply only to scientific testimony?
It does not, but should be applied to all types of expert testimony.
Kumho Tire v Carmichael
M’Naghten court
Central Criminal Court
M’Naghten issue
What is the law respecting alleged crimes committed by persons afflicted with insane delusion?
To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused as laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
M’Naghten
Montana v Egelhoff court
SCOTUS
Montana v Egelhoff issue
Was the due process clause of the 14th amendment violated by Montana statute when the jury was instructed that evidence about intoxication cannot be taken in to consideration when establishing a mental state.
Preventing the jury from hearing the evidence did not violate the 14th amendment (not a violation of due process).
Montana v Egelhoff
mens rea
purposefully
knowingly
recklessly
negligently
purposefully
knowledge that your actions would certainly result in a crime against that particular person
knowingly
knowledge that your actions would certainly result in a crime against someone, but didn’t intend the crime against that particular person
recklessly
knowledge that your actions had unjustifiable risk of leading to a result, but you did it anyway
negligently
you didn’t want or intend the thing to happen – failed to exercise reasonable duty of care (below criminal)
North Carolina v Alford court
SCOTUS
North Carolina v Alford issue
Can a judge accept a guilty plea if the defendant is claiming to be innocent?
The trial judge did not commit constitutional error in accepting appellee’s guilty plea.
North Carolina v Alford
O’Connor v Donaldson court
SCOTUS
O’Connor v Donaldson issue
Can a mentally ill individual be civilly committed to a psychiatric hospital if he/she is not dangerous?
A State cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends
O’Connor v Donaldson
Panetti v Quarterman court
SCOTUS
Panetti v Quarterman issue
- Can a defendant raise a Ford claim on a 2nd federal habeas corpus appeal?
- Does the 8th Amendment allow execution of a defendant who does not have a rational understanding of why he is to be executed?
- Supreme Court held to have statutory authority to adjudicate claims raised in petition for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 2254 by accused who alleged that, because of his mental condition, Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment precluded his execution.
- The state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution.
- The Fifth Circuit employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner’s claim of incompetency on the merits
Panetti v Quarterman
Parham v JR court
SCOTUS
Parham v JR issue
Is it unconstitutional to commit a child to a mental institution on a voluntary basis with the approval of the parent/guardian without an adversarial hearing?
Georgia procedures for admission of child to state administered institutional mental health care facility at request of parents or state, held not violative of due process.
Parham v JR
set guidelines for civil commitment of minors
Parham v JR
Powell v Texas court
SCOTUS
Powell v Texas issue
Is this the same issue as decided in Robinson v California? i.e. is being convicted of chronic alcoholism a status offense?
The sole question presented is whether a criminal penalty may be imposed upon a person suffering the disease of “chronic alcoholism” for a condition – being “in a state of intoxication” in public – which is a characteristic part of the pattern of his disease and which, the trial court found, was not the consequence of appellant’s volition but of “a compulsion symptomatic of the disease of chronic alcoholism.”
Texas was not criminalizing his status as an alcoholic, but his actual actions, which were illegal.
Powell v Texas
Robinson v California court
SCOTUS
Robinson v California issue
Can someone be arrested for a status offense, with no crime commitment, or is California violating the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) by way of 14th amendment (state’s breaking the law can become a constitutional issue – due process clause).
As so construed and applied, the statute inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Robinson v California
Rock v Arkansas court
SCOTUS
Rock v Arkansas issue
Is it unconstitutional to exclude a defendant from testifying on his/her own behalf about memories that have been refreshed via hypnosis?
Arkansas’ per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony infringes impermissibly on a criminal defendant’s right to testify on his or her own behalf. (Violates 5th, 6th and 14th amendment rights.)
Rock v Arkansas
Roper v Simmons court
SCOTUS
Roper v Simmons issue
Is it unconstitutional to execute a defendant who commits a crime over age 15 but under age 18?
**Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment proscription of cruel and unusual punishment held to prohibit imposition of death penalty for crimes committed when offenders were under age of 18 years.
Roper v Simmons
violated starry decisis due to prior finding in Stanford v Kentucky
Roper v Simmons
dissent upset about majority citing international opinions
Roper v Simmons
Sell v United States court
SCOTUS
Sell v United States issue
Whether the Constitution permits the government to administer antipsychotic drugs involuntarily to a mentally ill criminal defendant in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial for serious, but nonviolent, crimes.
Federal Constitution held, under some circumstances, to permit government to administer antipsychotic drugs to mentally ill defendant against defendant’s will in order to render defendant competent to stand trial.
Sell v United States
Specht v Patterson court
SCOTUS
Specht v Patterson issue
Is it unconstitutional to convict a defendant under one proceeding/statue and then sentence him under another proceeding/statue without a separate hearing?
**Failure to grant such procedural safeguards as a hearing and the right of confrontation violated the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Specht v Patterson
due process clause requires
-present with counsel
-have an opportunity to be heard
-be confronted with witnesses against him
-have the right to crossexamine and to offer evidence of his own
(Specht v Patterson)
psychiatric report and examination used to detain someone, they are entitled to a hearing with due process
Specht v Patterson
State v Hurd court
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County
State v Hurd issue
Is testimony witness that has been refreshed by hypnosis admissible?
It is admissible if the State meets its burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was no impermissibly suggestive or coercive conduct during the hypnotic session.
State v Hurd
State v Perry court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
State v Perry issue
Is it unconstitutional to force medicate someone for the sole purpose of restoring competency for execution?
it violates his right to privacy or personhood - constitutes cruel, excessive and unusual punishment
State v Perry
State v Perry
- The patient’s autonomy rights are violated
- regimen preclude a trustful, communicative doctor-patient relationship
- the physician cannot serve two masters
- patient’s well-being may be subordinated to the duty the doctor owes the state.
US v Comstock court
SCOTUS
US v Comstock issue
Does the Constitution allow the federal government to enact a law to civilly commit sex offenders in federal custody after the end of their prison term?
The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress authority sufficient to enact §4248 (civil commitment).
US v Comstock
US v Comstock
1- The Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws in furtherance of its constitutionally enumerated powers.
2- Congress has long been involved in the delivery of mental-health care to federal prisoners, and has long provided for their civil commitment.
3- The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose.
4- § 4248 does not “invade” state sovereignty, but rather requires accommodation of state interests:
5- Section 4248 is narrow in scope. Far from a “general police power,” § 4248 is a reasonably adapted and narrowly tailored means of pursuing the Government’s legitimate interest as a federal custodian in the responsible administration of its prison system
Vitek v Jones court
SCOTUS
Vitek v Jones issue
Is it unconstitutional to involuntarily transfer a convicted, incarcerated prisoner to a psychiatric hospital without certain procedural protections (e.g., notice, an adversary hearing, provision of counsel)?
US v Comstock
1- The Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws in furtherance of its constitutionally enumerated powers.
2- Congress has long been involved in the delivery of mental-health care to federal prisoners, and has long provided for their civil commitment.
3- The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose.
4- § 4248 does not “invade” state sovereignty, but rather requires accommodation of state interests:
5- Section 4248 is narrow in scope. Far from a “general police power,” § 4248 is a reasonably adapted and narrowly tailored means of pursuing the Government’s legitimate interest as a federal custodian in the responsible administration of its prison system
Vitek hearings
- availability of legal counsel
- cross-examine witnesses
- independent decision maker
notice
written findings
Washington v Harper court
SCOTUS
Washington v Harper issue
Is it a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment for the State to force involuntary medication on an inmate without judicial hearing?
State regulation allowing involuntary treatment of state prisoner with antipsychotic drugs, without judicial hearing, held not to violate Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Washington v Harper
Wilson v United States court
**US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Wilson v United States issue
Is it a denial of due process or of the right to effective assistance of counsel to try a defendant suffering from amnesia to the point they have no recollection of the events of the alleged crime?
A loss of memory should bar prosecution only when its presence would in fact be crucial to the construction and presentation of a defense and hence essential to the fairness and accuracy of the proceedings.
Wilson v United States
Wilson v United States
**look at 5th and 6th amendments
close to being violated??
Barefoot v Estelle court
SCOTUS
No error was found in the use of hypothetical questions to psychiatric witnesses, despite contentions that doctors should not have been permitted to give opinions on the ultimate issue before the jury.
Barefoot v Estelle
Zinermon v Burch court
SCOTUS
The court suggested that Florida and other states that statutorily require voluntary admissions to be competent should have procedure to screen voluntary admissions for competency.
Zinermon v Burch
Ake v Oklahoma court
SCOTUS
A state must provide an indigent criminal defendant with free psychiatric assistance in preparing an insanity defense if the defendant’s sanity at the time of the crime is seriously in question.
Ake v Oklahoma
Certain death penalty defendants have a separate right to psychiatric help. When the state seeks the death penalty on the ground that the defendant presents a danger to society, an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to psychiatric assistance in rebutting that assertion.
Ake v Oklahoma
Payne v Tennessee court
SCOTUS
The 8th amendment erects no per se bar prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering “victim impact” evidence relating to the victim’s personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the murder on the victim’s family.
Payne v Tennessee
Lake v Cameron court
Washington DC Court of Appeals
A patient cannot be held involuntarily in a psychiatric hospital, if there is some less restrictive treatment alternative to keep her safe.
Lake v Cameron
Lessard v Schmidt court
Wisconsin Federal Court
Standard of proof for civil commitment held to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and procedural safeguards similar to criminal commitment were mandated
Lessard v Schmidt
procedural safe guards for civil commitment
- Privilege against self-incrimination (5th amendment right); warning of no need to talk to psychiatrist
- Right to counsel
- Right to effective and timely notice of charges justifying detention
- Right to a jury trial
- Exclusion of hearsay evidence
- Right to be present and cross examine witnesses
Rouse v Cameron court
Washington DC Court of Appeals
There is a “right to treatment” for people held in mental institutions. Denial of treatment raised constitutional questions.
Rouse v Cameron
Youngberg v Romeo court
SCOTUS
Involuntarily committed retarded persons held to have constitutionally protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amend. to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by the interests.
Youngberg v Romeo
Wyatt v Stickney court
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
There are minimum constitutional standards for adequate treatment. You can’t say failure to give these treatments is lack of funds. The big 3: humane psychological and physical environment, qualified staff in numbers sufficient to administer adequate treatment and individualized treatment plans.
Wyatt v Stickney
Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College Court
DC Court of Appeals
Judge Wright ordered that an emergency writ be signed to administer such transfusions as were necessary to save Mrs. Jones’s life.
Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College
Rogers v Commissioner court
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Judge, not guardian, makes treatment decision
* “Substituted judgment”
Rogers v Commissioner
Rennie v Klein court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Involuntarily committed mentally ill patients have a constitutional right to refuse administration of antipsychotic drugs.
Rennie v Klein
Canterbury v Spence court
DC Court of Appeals
We now find, as a part of the physician’s overall obligation to the patient, a similar duty of reasonable disclosure of the choices with respect to proposed therapy and the dangers inherently and potentially involved.
Canterbury v Spence
Kaimowitz v Michigan court
Michigan Circuit Court, Wayne County
Informed consent cannot be given by an involuntarily detained mental patient for experimental psychosurgery.
Kaimowitz v Michigan
Cruzan v Director court
SCOTUS
Missouri requirement that incompetent’s wishes as to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence held not violative of due process.
Cruzan v Director
Washington v Glucksberg court
SCOTUS
State statute, which provides that a person who knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide is guilty of felony of promoting suicide attempt, held not violative of Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Washington v Glucksberg
In re Lifschutz court
Supreme Court of California
- No constitutional right enables the psychotherapist to assert an absolute privilege concerning all psychotherapeutic communications.
- The existence of a broad statutory privilege in clergymen does not deny psychotherapists the equal protection of the laws.
- The patient-litigant exception, as properly limited, does not necessarily entail an overbroad intrusion into the patient’s privacy.
In re Lifschuztz
Doe v Roe court
Supreme Court of New York
A physician who enters into an agreement with a patient to provide medical attention impliedly covenants to keep in confidence all disclosures made by the patient concerning the patient’s physical or mental condition as well as all matters discovered by the physician in the course of examination or treatment.
Doe v Roe
- No constitutional right enables the psychotherapist to assert an absolute privilege concerning all psychotherapeutic communications.
- The existence of a broad statutory privilege in clergymen does not deny psychotherapists the equal protection of the laws.
- The patient-litigant exception, as properly limited, does not necessarily entail an overbroad intrusion into the patient’s privacy.
In re Lifschuztz
Confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and the psychotherapist’s patient in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. – This extends also to social workers conducting psychotherapy. [Extends to Federal Court only]
Jaffee v Redmond
Estelle v Gamble court
SCOTUS
Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment.
Estelle v Gamble
Farmer v Brennan court
SCOTUS
A prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for acting with “deliberate indifference” to inmate health or safety only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.
Farmer v Brennan
Brown v Plata court
SCOTUS
Three-judge court acted properly in requiring California to reduce its prison population to remedy lack of care for those with serious medical and psychological conditions, as other remedies would not provide effective relief.
Brown v Plata
Tarasoff v Regents court
California Supreme Court
When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger.
Tarasoff v Regents (Tarasoff II)
Roy v Hartogs court
Supreme Court of New York
Defendant psychiatrist was properly found liable in malpractice for inducing plaintiff to have sexual intercourse with him as part of her prescribed therapy.
Roy v Hartogs
Mazza v Medical Mutual court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The terms of the insurance contract in the present case provide coverage for punitive damages, and public policy does not prohibit such coverage. [Punitive damages to be covered by insurance]
Mazza v Medical Mutual
Dillon v Legg court
Supreme Court of California
Those who are out of the field of physical danger through impact shall have a legally protected right to be free from emotional distress occasioned by the peril of others, when that distress results in physical impairment. [Reasonably foreseeable]
Dillon v Leg
zone of danger reasonably foreseeable
- located near the scene of the accident
- direct emotional impact upon plaintiff
- plaintiff and the victim were closely related
Olmstead v LC court
SCOTUS
Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act held to require states, under some circumstances, to provide persons with mental disabilities with community-based treatment rather than placement in institutions.
Olmstead v LC
Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson court
SCOTUS
Sexual harassment creating hostile or abusive work environment, without economic loss, held to violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson
Harris v Forklift court
SCOTUS
To be actionable as “abusive work environment” harassment, conduct need not “seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well-being” or lead the plaintiff to “suffer injury.”
Harris v Forklift
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services court
SCOTUS
Same-sex sexual harassment in workplace held actionable as sex discrimination under provision of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services
Landeros v Flood court
Supreme Court of California
It is the standard of care for a physician to suspect, work-up and diagnose child abuse. It is also required by legislative statute for hospitals and physicians to report concerns of child abuse to the proper authorities.
Landeros v Flood
DeShaney v. Winnebago court
SCOTUS
County agency held to have had no duty, under due process clause of Federal Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, to protect child against abuse by his father while child was in father’s custody.
DeShaney v. Winnebago
Board of Education v Rowley court
SCOTUS
Deaf student held not entitled to sign-language interpreter in public school classes, under Education for All Handicapped Children Act, where she was receiving adequate education and personalized instruction.
Board of Education v Rowley
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro court
SCOTUS
Cathcterization is a “related service” under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is inapplicable when relief is available under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to remedy a denial of educational services.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
Bragdon v Abbott court
SCOTUS
Dental patient’s asymptomatic HIV infection held to be disability under Americans with Disabilities Act provision.
Bragdon v Abbott
In making findings of an amnesic defendant’s mental competency, the court should consider the following factors:
(1) the extent to which the amnesia affected defendant’s ability to consult with and assist his lawyer,
(2) the extent to which the amnesia affected defendant’s ability to testify in his own behalf,
(3) the extent to which the evidence could have been extrinsically reconstructed in view of defendant’s amnesia,
(4) the extent to which the government assisted defendant and his counsel in that reconstruction,
(5) the strength of the government’s case, and
(6) any other facts and circumstances.
Safeguards for hypnotically refreshed testimony
(1) Hypnotic session should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist/psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis.
(2) The qualified professional conducting the hypnotic session should be independent of and not responsible to the prosecutor, investigator or the defense.
(3) Any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel prior to the hypnotic session must be in written form so that subsequently the extent of the information the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined.
(4) Before induction of hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them, carefully avoiding adding any new elements to the witness’ description of the events.
(5) All contacts between the hypnotist and the subject should be recorded so that a permanent record is available for comparison and study to establish that the witness has not received information or suggestion which might later be reported as having been first described by the subject during hypnosis. Videotape should be employed if possible, but should not be mandatory.
(6) Only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, including the pre-hypnotic testing and post-hypnotic interview.
Sell criteria
- treatment is medically appropriate
- is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the trial’s fairness
- taking account of less intrusive alternatives
- necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests
criminalization of civil commitment
Lessard v Schmidt
specific intent
purposefully
knowingly
affirmative defense
Self-defense
Insanity defense
Entrapment defense
Necessity defense
Once evidence of a mental illness is introduced by the defense, the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Durham v US
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
US v Comstock
necessary and proper clause
PTSD response validity scales
PAI
Sequencial Intercept Model
Intercept 1, Law Enforcement and Emergency Services; Intercept 2, Initial Hearings and Initial Detention; Intercept 3, Jails and Courts;
Intercept 4, Reentry from Jails, Prisons, and Hospitals; Intercept 5, Community Corrections and Community Support Services.
Intercept zero represents the addition of a new paradigm at the front end of the criminal justice system, prior to arrest, for public health and primary prevention.
Riggins v. Nevada
U.S Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial.
Helling v. McKinney
extended the requirement that inmates receive required medical care and that not doing so was in violation of the constitution
locality rule
requires defendant physicians to provide the same degree of skill and care that is required of other physicians practicing in the same or similar community.
cortical dementia
memory problems and language deficits
subcortical dementia
attention/concentration deficits, information processing problems, reduced verbal fluency and executive function deficits.
elements of informed consent/capacity
understand the relevant information
???
???
reason rationally
Santosky v. Kramer
clear and convincing evidence standard for termination of parental rights
Rogers v Commissioner violation
42 U.S.C. 1983
Hall v. Florida
Florida’s process of identifying intellectually disordered defendants in capital cases:
Unconstitutional because it required defendants to show an IQ test score of 70 or below before being permitted to submit additional evidence of intellectual disability
use standard error of measure
Irresistible Impulse Test
inability of an individual to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law
Bell v. Wolfish
constitutional standard that governs the conditions of confinement of pretrial detainees is:
due process???
8th amendment does not help pretrial detainees
Montgomery v. Louisiana
Children’s diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform
Medina v. California
U.S. Supreme Court upheld that a state statue calling for a presumption of competence and placing the burden of proof on the party raising the issue.
sexual harassment
discrimination on the basis of gender
parasomnias (sleepwalking)
first 3-4hrs of the night
eyes upward and inward
wild beast standard
total deprivation of memory and understanding
Bowring v. Godwin
mental health treatment was not an absolute right for prisoners
US v Comstock
necessary and proper clause
group-to-individual (G2i) inference problem
problem of drawing reliable conclusions about particular individuals based on studies that report averaged differences between groups of subjects.
bath salts
Synthetic cathinones
past crimes
A therapist does not have a legal obligation to report statements of a patient’s past unreported and/or unprosecuted felony.
ALI model penal code
defendant’s mental illness renders them unable to appreciate the criminality of their act (cognitive prong)
OR
was unable to conform their behavior to the law (volitional prong)
vicarious trauma PTSD
The DSM-5 excludes the diagnosis when the exposure is only through media.
Evidence-based psychotherapies for suicide prevention include:
Dialectical behavioral therapy
Olmstead v. L. C.
mandates states to provide community placements for institutionalized patients who meet certain criteria
Dillon v. Legg,
Her injuries were reasonably foreseeable.
Painter v. Bannister
The “best-interests” standard allowed for award of a child to a non-parent
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
Congress granted the government the authority to civilly commit federal inmates deemed to be “sexually dangerous” at the end of their prison sentence through:
PCL-R psychopathy
15-20% among male prisoners and 0.6% among the overall population
14th amendment level of scrutiny
If the law in question involves a fundamental right (such as voting), it must pass strict scrutiny
Strict Scrutiny
law in question must further a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored, and implemented by the least restrictive means
Does the law infringe upon a Fundamental Right
Does the law disproportionally affect a suspect classification
McKune v. Lile
The Court ruled that the policy requiring disclosure of sexual crimes did not violate the Fifth Amendment because consequences for not participating in the program did not lengthen the sentence
Rational Basis test
the law in question must be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” governmental reason offered as its justification
Intermediate Scrutiny
rarely used
Parental Preference model
past parental roles should be the basis of future custody after divorce
the tender years doctrine
Maternal Preference Doctrine
Paternal Preference Model
children property of father
Least Detrimental Alternative
Anna Freud
advanced the concept of the psychological parent, which is the parent with whom the child has the closest reciprocal relationship
Rex v. Arnold
wild beast test
Rex v Hadfield
??
Model Penal Code” Test
inability to either understand the criminal act or an inability to conform behavior to the law, as the result of a mental defect.
“Irresistible Impulse” Test
inability to control the impulse, due to mental disease, that led to the criminal act
standards of proof listed from the most stringent requirements to the most lax
Clear and convincing > preponderance of evidence > Probable cause > reason to believe
mental disorder with the highest suicide rate
bipolar depression - 20%
schizophrenia - 20% attempt, 5-10% die
depressive disorder - 5%
Fare v. Michael C
in order for this youth to waive her rights, which of the following should be taken into consideration:
age of the juvenile
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Ac
Financial requirements for mental health coverage can be no more restrictive than medical/surgical care
Cooper v. Oklahoma
level of certainty necessary to adjudicate a defendant incompetent to proceed is:
preponderance of the evidence
Risk factors that have been shown to be more likely to lead to adult antisocial behaviors include
ommitting multiple types of crimes (those that commit violent crimes are more likely to commit other crimes), hyperactivity, impaired concentration, and risk taking/reckless behavior; poor parenting skills, including inconsistent parenting or lack of discipline; and difficulties with academic achievement
Carter v General Motor
Michigan Supreme Court
emotional disabilities are compensable under Workmen’s Comp Act regardless of whether the cause is direct stained pressure injury, mental shock or su
In re Gault
juvenile rights: timely notice, present of counsel, confront and cross-exam witnesses, no self-incrimination
no right to jury
Miller v Alabama
8th Am. forbids mandatory LWOP for juveniles
Graham v Florida
8th Am. forbids LWOP for non-homicide offenses for juveniles
Riggins v Nevada constitutional issue
violated 6th and 14th Ams
murder trial force Mellaril
Godinez v Moran waiver
knowing and voluntary
Cooper v Oklahoma constitutional issue
14th Am substantive due process
fundamental fairness
test for competence to be executed
Ford v Wainwright
- prisoner aware of impending execution
- knowns reason for it
State v Perry constitutional issue
8th Am - cruel and unusual punishment
right to privacy and personhood
constitutional right to individual treatment
Donaldson v O’Connor
due process rights of IST
Jackson v Indiana
State v Perry constitutional issue
8th Am - cruel and unusual punishment
14th Am due process
right to privacy and personhood
Fare v Michael
asking for probation officer is not per se asking for counsel under Miranda
does not invoke 5th Am rights
Roper v Simmons constitutional issue
8th Am
14th Am
Board of Education v Rowley
free and appropriate education
maximization of potential not required
Estelle v Gamble constitutional issue
8th Am
deliberate indifference mens rea
subjective recklessness
hostile work environment standard
Harris v Forklift
reasonable person finds hostile
victim perceived as hostile
Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson ultimate issue
unwelcomeness
People v Stritzinger
6th Am rights violated when therapist gave subsequent information to police regarding step-father’s sexual abuse
psychotherapist-patient privilege violated
State v Andring
physician-patient privilege extends to confidential group therapy sessions
DeShaney v Winnebago constitutional issue
14th Am substantive due process
Wyatt v Stickney constitutional issue
14th Am due process
US v Georgia
disabled state prison inmate can sue for money under ADA
ADA bans segregation of disabled
Olmstead v LC
zone of danger
Dillon v Legg
- near scene
- direct impact from witnessing
- closely related to victim
M’Naghten questions
15 law lords
5 questions
- jury instructions (nature and quality + wrongfulness)
- punishable if knew at the time act was contrary to the law
- responsible if delusional content still unlawful (delusion that someone wrong you, so you kill them vs delusion of self-defense)
Washington v US
psychiatrists prohibited from addressing the ultimate issue in insanity cases
Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act
- result of severe mental disease/defect
- nature and quality + wrongfulness
- defendant has burden of proving in sanity
- clear and convincing evidence
Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act
- result of severe mental disease/defect
- nature and quality + wrongfulness
- defendant has burden of proving in sanity
- clear and convincing evidence
insanity release standard
Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act
- clear and convincing evidence - violent crime
- preponderance of the evidence - nonviolent crime
Ibn-Tames v US
trial court erred in precluding psychologist’s testimony on battered women bc it did not:
- speak to ultimate issue
- speak to something average folks know (it was beyond the ken)
test for admissibility
Ibn-Tames v US
- subject matter so scientific as to be beyond the ken of layman
- expert witness qualified to give opinion
- sate of art perms reasonable opinion
3 relevant factors in deciding what type of assistance is required in insanity defense
Ake v Oklahoma
- defendant’s stake in the proceeding
- state’s interest
- value of assistance and risk of error if it is denied
standard to refuse NGRI
Frendak v US
Dusky standard not enough
judge must inquire:
- fully informed of alternatives
- comprehends the consequences
- freely choose to waive
Foucha v Louisiana standard
insanity acquitte may be held only if BOTH mentally ill AND dangerous
Jones v US standard
insanity acquitted may be held if he is insane OR dangerous
Clark v Arizona
no constitutional minimum that Staes must have in phrasing their insanity defense standard
lawful to preclude mental health testimony on ability to form specific intent
3 categories of evidence with potential bearing on mens rea
Clark v Arizona
- observation evidence
- mental disease evidence
- capacity evidence
Clites v State of Iowa
need for informed consent in order to not pay damages
right to treatment
Youngberg v Romeo
right to refuse treatment
Rennie v Klein
Rogers v Commissioner
right to treatment
Youngberg v Romeo
Wyatt v Stickney
Rouse v Cameron
right to refuse treatment
Rennie v Klein
Rogers v Commissioner
Hargrave v Vermont
Hargrave v Vermont
Act 114 (overturns DPOA for involuntarily committed pts) discriminates against mentally disabled individuals in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act
Hargrave v Vermont court
circuit court
duty to warn
Tarasoff I
duty to protect
Tarasoff II (landmark case)
In re Lifschutz
patient owns the privilege, not the doctor
therapist has no constitutional right to privacy
Lipari v Sears court
US District Court Nebraska
Lipari v Sears
therapist has a duty to warn class of individuals that would be foreseeable victims (public at large)
protected under Jaffee v Redmond
federal cases
not military
psychiatrist
psychologist
social worker doing therapy
criminalized juvenile hearings
In re Gault
criminalized civil commitment hearings
Lessard v Schmidt
civil commitment standard (pt rights)
Lessard v Schmidt
- advance notice
- right to jury
- right to counsel
- privilege against self-incrimination
- exclusion of hearsay evidence
- notice of state’s proposed testimony
Zinermon v Burch
constitutional to bring suit against due process issues regarding voluntary commitment issues in federal court
Montana v Egelhoff
precluding information about voluntary intoxication relative to mens rea doe not violate federal due process
Washington v Glucksberg
right to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause
Judge Bazelon
Durham v US
Rouse v Cameron
Lake v Cameron
Washington v US
deference to medical decision-making
Parham v JL & JR
Youngberg v Romeo
decided before trial on the merits
Landeros v Flood
Lipari v Sears
Tarasoff v Regents
Kumho Tire v Carmichael
Painter v Bannister court
Iowa District Court
Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act
- set limits on ultimate issue testimony
- set insanity standard in federal trials
- set insanity acquitted release standards
- specified the burden of proof on insanity trials
Dusky burden of proof for IST
more likely than not
Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act
- severe mental disease or defect required for insanity
- set limits on ultimate issue testimony
- set insanity standard in federal trials (clear and convincing evidence)
- set insanity acquitted release standards (higher standard for violent crimes vs nonviolent)
- specified the burden of proof on insanity trials
Jackson v Indian constitutional issue
8th Am
14th Am due process
14th Am equal protection
M’Naughten
1st insanity case heard at appellate level
15 judges, 5 questions
Judge Tindal presided
clear and convincing evidence = closest standard
Rex v Arnold
wild beast test
James Hadfield trial
offspring of a delusion test
Earl Ferrers trial
1st recorded psychiatric testimony
Foucha v Louisiana class compared
convicted prisoners
Jones v US class compared
civil committed
Jackson v Indiana class compared
civil committed
Doe v Roe
consent not obtained in writing
harm inflicted not intentional
Santosky v Kramer constitutional issue
14th Am
IST standard
preponderance of the evidence
defendant bears burden of persuasion
offspring of a delusion
Hadfield trial
irresistible impulse
Edward Oxford trial
